TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#236551: Mar 25th 2018 at 9:57:03 AM

Situational Crime Prevention (SCP) is indeed commonly used to deter would-be criminals and give a perception of safety (not necessarily a false one). It's generally effective at preventing small time crime, but anything more organised or experienced gets through it pretty easily.

edited 25th Mar '18 9:58:14 AM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#236552: Mar 25th 2018 at 10:02:25 AM

The thing is we're not talking about the sort of crime that can be explained with the broken windows theory. Given that school shootings are often effectively murder-suicides, I don't see how you're going to deter them with "but someone there might have a gun".

"Yup. That tasted purple."
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#236553: Mar 25th 2018 at 10:18:06 AM

Suicides are effectively deterred by simple barriers, such as hotline signs or low fences and walls. As I mentioned, there have been shooters deterred by locked doors. I’d say most shooters aren’t determined, hardened criminals.

Obviously security theater wouldn’t deter every shooter, but I’m sure it would deter quite a few of them.

They should have sent a poet.
TheRoguePenguin Since: Jul, 2009
#236554: Mar 25th 2018 at 11:04:35 AM

To put it in more general terms, the idea isn't to deter the crime itself, per se, but to force those thinking about it to spend longer doing so. Every little barrier between the person and that goal is a bit more time they have to consider that maybe they're making a rash decision.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#236555: Mar 25th 2018 at 11:10:51 AM

By the time security comes into the picture in this instance, it's a little too late to be much of a deterrent. If the existence of police and the possibility that people in the school are armed isn't a deterrent, the presence somewhere of security isn't going to be much help.

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#236556: Mar 25th 2018 at 11:11:19 AM

I don't think school resource officers are a necessarily a bad thing though. The ones at my school would help with a lot of situations such as if a physical fights broke out, etc.

edited 25th Mar '18 11:18:24 AM by megaeliz

Memers Since: Aug, 2013
#236557: Mar 25th 2018 at 11:15:56 AM

In general that’s what the school narks a for, actually armed narks getting into minor things like a scuffle is just asking for trouble.

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#236558: Mar 25th 2018 at 11:27:51 AM

[up][up] Not necessarily. Just like with people trying to kill themselves, anything that slows the shooter down or makes them hesitate for even a second has an outsize impact on their willingness to follow through. I'm not talking about security in the "kill the shooter before they can kill" sense.

It's the exact same reason there should be a waiting period on gun purchases,

edited 25th Mar '18 11:28:19 AM by archonspeaks

They should have sent a poet.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#236559: Mar 25th 2018 at 11:28:17 AM

Today is Stormy Daniels Day!

Anyone planning to watch the "60 Minutes" interview with the feminist hero we didn't know we needed?

edited 25th Mar '18 11:31:41 AM by megaeliz

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#236560: Mar 25th 2018 at 11:30:07 AM

In fairness, "armed guards" could also be interpreted to mean one or two on-campus police officers, which isn't exactly uncommon since they can be of help in incidents not involving a shooting.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#236561: Mar 25th 2018 at 11:39:59 AM

Great article about her in The NY Times,

Stormy Daniels, Trump’s Unlikely Foe, Is ‘Not Someone to Be Underestimated’

One by one, the honorees came forward to be recognized: the wounded veteran, the tech executive and the noted porn star.

It was the 10-year reunion for Scotlandville Magnet High School’s Class of 1997 in Baton Rouge, La., and a few alumni were being singled out for professional distinction. Stephanie Clifford needed no reintroduction. “Everybody already knew,” she said of her career in an interview. She worked the room of suits and gowns with a smile.

By now, the public knows both too much about Ms. Clifford, who goes by Stormy Daniels, and almost nothing at all.

She is the actress in pornographic films who is suing a sitting president, with whom she said she had a consensual affair, in order to be released from a nondisclosure agreement she reached with his lawyer just before the 2016 election. Over the past two months, she has guided the story of her alleged relationship with President Trump — and the $130,000 she was paid to keep silent — into a full-fledged scandal. If Ms. Clifford’s court case proceeds, Mr. Trump may have to testify in depositions, and her suit could provide evidence of campaign spending violations. She is scheduled to appear on “60 Minutes” on Sunday.

And if her name has seemed ubiquitous — repeated on cable television and in the White House briefing room, and plastered on signs outside nightclubs, where her appearance fees have multiplied — there is this to consider: Unlike most perceived presidential adversaries, about whom Mr. Trump is rarely shy, Ms. Clifford has not been the subject of a single tweet.

To many in the capital, Ms. Clifford, 39, has become an unexpected force. It is she, some in Washington now joke, and not the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who could topple Mr. Trump.

Those who know her well have registered the moment differently. Ms. Clifford has subsisted amid the seamier elements of a business often rife with exploitation and unruly fare; more than a few of her film titles are unprintable. But for most of her professional life, Ms. Clifford has been a woman in control of her own narrative in a field where that can be uncommon. With an instinct for self-promotion, she evolved from “kindergarten circuit” stripper to star actress and director, and occasional mainstream success, by her late 20s. Why would a piece of paper and an executive legal team set her back?

“She’s the boss, and everyone knew it,” Nina Hartley, one of the longest-working performers in the industry, said about Ms. Clifford.

“The Renaissance porn star,” said Ron Jeremy, once perhaps the most famous porn star of all.

“She was a very serious businesswoman and a filmmaker and had taken the reins of her career,” said Judd Apatow, who directed her cameos in the R-rated comedies “Knocked Up” and “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.” “She is not someone to be underestimated.”

In her own scripts, she has gravitated at times toward more ambitious productions, with elaborate plotlines and nods to politics.

Her standards on set can be exacting. Ms. Clifford does not mind firing people, colleagues said, banishing those who flub a scene or gild a résumé. She has demanded that an actor change his “dumb” stage name because it would look silly on her promotional materials. And she has coaxed singular performances from her charges, once guiding Mr. Jeremy through a scene in which he sang to her small dog.

Her competitive streak is not well concealed. After industry award nominations were announced one year, Ms. Clifford, who had amassed more than a dozen such honors, reminded an interviewer that she had been snubbed in the categories of cinematography and editing.

When opportunities have presented themselves outside her domain — a Maroon 5 music video, a public flirtation with a Senate run in Louisiana, an appearance at a celebrity golf tournament that included a future president — Ms. Clifford has made the most of the publicity, helping her carve out a comfortable life in the Dallas suburbs.

She has a daughter, a third husband and an expensive hobby: equestrian shows. “She blends right in,” said Packy Mc Gaughan, a trainer on the competition circuit. “A pretty girl riding a horse.”

More recently, inconspicuousness has been elusive in her life, but that is largely by design. Ms. Clifford has leveraged her newfound crossover fame into a national stripping tour, with scheduled dates through the end of the year. Not everyone is interested in attending.

“Pretty sure dumb whores go to hell,” someone wrote her on Twitter last week.

“Whew!” Ms. Clifford replied. “Glad I’m a smart one.”

Becoming Stormy

Classmates remember her as a serious, unobtrusive student — a natural fit at a competitive, racially diverse high school with an engineering focus. They knew her as Stephanie Gregory, the girl with the auburn hair. She liked horses and Mötley Crüe.

A quote beneath her senior yearbook photo hinted at high aspirations: “We will all get along just fine,” it read, “as soon as you realize that I am Queen.”

She thought she might be a veterinarian, or maybe a writer. “At first I thought I wanted to be a journalist,” Ms. Clifford said by phone on Friday in a 12-minute interview about her background.

Her parents, Sheila and Bill Gregory, divorced when she was about 4, leaving her largely in the care of her mother. She has not seen either parent in over a decade. Ms. Clifford, who later took her first husband’s surname, came from a “really bad neighborhood,” she said. She strained to remember exactly what she was like then.

“I don’t really know because I’m such a different person now,” she said. “I wasn’t like the popular girl, and I wasn’t the jock, and I wasn’t the ditz. I don’t know. I was just sort of in the middle of the road.”

She had offers from colleges, she has said. She had the test scores. The dancing started on a lark, of sorts. She was 17 and visiting a friend at a strip club in town, when she was persuaded to perform a “guest set.”

“I remember going on stage and thinking I was going to be a lot more afraid than I was,” Ms. Clifford said. “It was a slow night. There were like three people in the club, and I made enough money on two songs to make more than I did all week answering phones at the riding stable that I worked at.”

After high school, she found a professional home at the Gold Club in Baton Rouge, ingratiating herself with management as a reliable and magnetic performer, slogging through shifts from 3 p.m. to 2 a.m. to earn perhaps a few hundred dollars a night.

A calendar from 1999, in which Ms. Clifford straddles a Harley-Davidson as the dancer for July, still sits in the club, now called the Penthouse Club Baton Rouge.

“We knew,” said Chuck Rolling, who has long overseen operations there. “She was moving in a direction that was bigger than us. We’re in Baton Rouge. We’re not even New Orleans.”

Ms. Clifford eventually graduated to higher-profile dancing work, traveling across Texas and Louisiana to headline at strip clubs, before transitioning to pornography. She was both determined to bend the business to her will and conflicted about the long-term consequences. “I have very mixed emotions about stripping because stripping got me where I am now,” she said, at age 23, in an industry interview. “I own my own house, I own my own car, I own my own business. My credit is excellent. I have nice furniture and nice things.”

Still, the risks were clear. “I have just seen so many girls that it just ruins them,” she said then, “so many women who are 35, 40 years old and still stripping and have nothing to show for it, and that is just really sad.”

Ms. Clifford chose a more tempestuous stage name than most peers. She was not an Angel, or a Summer, or a Destiny. She was Stormy. And she was blond now.

Often, she kept to herself. Mike South, a director and columnist in the industry press, recalled encountering her in 2004, the year she was named “best new starlet” at the Adult Video News Awards, pornography’s equivalent of the Oscars. “She was sitting in the lobby, alone, and I just decided to be friendly,” said Mr. South, who invited her to a group dinner. “She looks at me and doesn’t crack a smile — expressionless — and says, ‘I am really not that friendly.’”

Recognition came quickly anyway: awards, magazine spreads, feature roles and a contract with Wicked Pictures, a prominent pornography company. When she needed to, she charmed industry gatekeepers with a disarming wit.

“Are those real?” read a question posted on her website.

“Well,” she said, “you’re certainly not imagining them.”

In 2008, as Jenna Jameson, then the industry’s reigning monarch, announced her retirement at an awards show — “I will never spread my legs in this industry again,” she told the crowd — Ms. Clifford seemed to position herself next in line.

“I love you, Jenna,” Ms. Clifford said, accepting an award from Ms. Jameson moments later, “but I’m going to spread my legs a little longer.”

Other Horizons

It was a striking political slogan: “Screwing People Honestly.” But subtlety was never the idea.

In 2009, well into her turn as a director, Ms. Clifford sensed an opening beyond her typical orbit. David Vitter, a United States senator in her home state of Louisiana, was staggering toward a re-election year, laid low by a prostitution scandal. Ms. Clifford declared herself a Republican (though a Democratic operative was said to be involved in her efforts) and courted wide-scale media attention as she publicly weighed the merits of running. In remarks at the time, she connected her professional journey to the lives of service workers across the state.

“Just as these misguided arbiters of the mainstream view an adult entertainment star as an anathema to the political process,” she said, when she eventually decided against a bid, “so too do they view the dishwasher, the cashier or the bus driver.”

The false-start campaign coincided with a turbulent moment in her personal life, exposing her to scrutiny in the mainstream press. In July 2009, Ms. Clifford was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence after hitting her husband, a performer in the industry, and throwing a potted plant during a fight about laundry and unpaid bills, according to police records. The husband, Michael Mosny, was not injured, and the charge was later dropped. Ms. Clifford had previously been married to another pornographic actor.

She has since married another colleague in the business, Brendon Miller, the father of her now 7-year-old daughter. He is also a drummer and has composed music for her films. The family has been spotted often at equestrian events, where Ms. Clifford, the owner of several horses, has captured blue ribbons. Her preparations can be meticulous, matching her saddle pad with a horse’s bonnet colors.

“She takes it very personally that she does well,” said Dominic Schramm, a horse trainer and rider who has worked with her for several years. “She can be quite hard on herself.”

Ms. Clifford has not shown up at competitions since news broke in January that she accepted a financial settlement in October 2016 — weeks before the election — agreeing to keep quiet about her alleged intimate relationship with Mr. Trump. She has said the affair, which representatives of Mr. Trump have denied, began in 2006 and extended into 2007, the year she married Mr. Mosny.

Earlier this month, she escalated public attention by filing suit, calling the 2016 contract meaningless given that Mr. Trump had never signed it and revealing that the president’s personal lawyer had taken further secret legal action to keep her silent this year.

She has said that she does not want to expose the equestrian world — or her daughter — to the attendant circus trailing her now.

But the show has gone on for Ms. Clifford. She has danced across the country in recent months, from Las Vegas to Long Island. There are many more appearances to come. It would be foolish, she has said, to turn down more money than usual for the same work.

“She likes to maximize her profits,” said Danny Capozzi, an agent who manages her bookings, “not only on the feature dance bookings but at all times.”

Smart, witty, porn star, accomplished equestrian, Tried to run for Congress, and doesn't give a crap about what you think.

edited 25th Mar '18 11:52:51 AM by megaeliz

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#236562: Mar 25th 2018 at 11:54:44 AM

She certainly seems like someone worthy of respect.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#236563: Mar 25th 2018 at 11:57:28 AM

Army veteran who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan deported to Mexico.

Great love for our troops and all that...

edited 25th Mar '18 12:00:08 PM by LSBK

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#236564: Mar 25th 2018 at 12:00:51 PM

Honestly I don't think I can properly express my rage and disgust, god I can't wait for the midterm.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#236565: Mar 25th 2018 at 12:03:49 PM

Conservatives shout at the top of their longs how much they love the troops, but at the end of the day they're just another political pawn to them. Once you've come home and taken off the uniform you're worth nothing.

They should have sent a poet.
Steven (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
#236566: Mar 25th 2018 at 12:10:30 PM

See M84's sig in my response to that.

Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#236567: Mar 25th 2018 at 12:10:34 PM

Troops, fetuses, their entire voter base....they really don't give a damn about any of them.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
math792d Since: Jun, 2011 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#236568: Mar 25th 2018 at 12:10:35 PM

Republicans don't care about veterans unless they're dead and can be used as a political cudgel.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#236569: Mar 25th 2018 at 12:12:15 PM

[up][up][up]Yeah none of this is surprising, but it's still extremely wrong.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#236570: Mar 25th 2018 at 12:12:20 PM

Once you've come home and taken off the uniform you're worth nothing.
Heck, we don't need to take off the uniform to be worth nothing - under Obama, the GOP regularly gave smaller pay raises than the WH asked for. And as just one result, the Air Force doesn't have enough pilots to fly.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#236571: Mar 25th 2018 at 12:14:19 PM

[up] The problem is that while they love the concept of "the troops", they don't really care for the troops themselves unless they're silent set pieces for a politician to give a speech in front of.

Oddly that's the exact same thing they accuse liberals of doing.

edited 25th Mar '18 12:15:11 PM by archonspeaks

They should have sent a poet.
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#236572: Mar 25th 2018 at 12:17:34 PM

They accuse liberal of their sins, nothing new.

They're always trying to tear down the VA too instead of fix it.

I'm baaaaaaack
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#236573: Mar 25th 2018 at 12:23:00 PM

[up][up]What they love is the Military Industrial (Congressional) Complex.

edited 25th Mar '18 12:24:54 PM by megaeliz

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#236574: Mar 25th 2018 at 12:23:00 PM

Regarding Trump and North Korea, you just have to look at the calculus this way.

Any North Korean strike results in the 100% guaranteed destruction of their country. If Trump tweets that he's going to nuke, their options are either a preemptive strike, leading to the 100% guaranteed destruction mentioned above, or waiting and doing nothing. Doing nothing is the winning choice every time because a tweet from Trump may or may not actually translate into action.

If we're really serious about war with North Korea, it won't be coming through a tweet. Everyone here remembers the lead up to the Iraq war, it was basically a full court press from all the top members of the administration, as well as over a year of military maneuvering to get in place. It's not as simple as Trump tweeting war and the troops marching out no questions asked.

I've bolded the part of your statement that I don't think you and North Korea will see eye to eye on. Agreeing with this statement requires acceptance of one basic truth: that North Korea is powerless on the global stage. That North Korea exists purely at the mercy of larger countries and could never be a true threat to the world at large. That, at the end of the day, Kim's regime exists purely because we permit it to and not because he is a powerful man in charge of a powerful nation.

Now, that largely is the situation. The only reason Kim's even on the map is because China protects him. But I think you're fooling yourself if you expect Kim to take his own global impotence into account and to act on the knowledge that he is a weak, defenseless, powerless man unable to even secure his own country from foreign attack.

If you expect Kim to agree with this, you are in for a surprise. He's not running a nation; he's just holding South Korea to ransom and demanding respect. There is little doubt in my mind that he'd pull that trigger if he thought an attack was coming, purely out of spite.

Also, there's this:

A preemptive strike is a 100% chance of death.

It's not, actually. The biggest threat a conflict with North Korea poses is that China will be dragged into the war. Then it's a war between the U.S. and China, and nobody wants that.

If China believes that North Korea acted in its own defense to make the American bullies back off, it will step up and defend them from American retaliation. The timeline scenario for that basically goes like this:

  • Trump tweets we're bombing North Korea.
  • North Korea bombs South Korea to remind us how dangerous they are.
  • The Americans begin deliberation of a real war with North Korea.
  • China goes, "Oh, hell no, you don't. They were just protecting themselves."
  • After much deliberation, it's decided that the Americans do not want a war with China that would probably destroy the Earth, and so nothing is done against North Korea. Life moves on for everyone except the people of South Korea, who were killed by Trump's idiocy.

I am still waiting for an explanation for how armed guards will deter someone who is fully prepared and often expecting to die.

Same question I ask to people who talk about executing terrorists (after asking why they want to make martyrs of them just like they want).

I actually agree with you on the principle of not executing terrorists or expecting armed guards to deter shooters, but I do want to point out that martyrdom is an overrated angle.

To whom would they be martyred? Who would be rallying to champion the cause if they found out Abdullah Example Man was put to death, but would totally back out and be like, "Meh, no big deal," if he just spends the rest of his life in Guantanamo?

Martyrdom isn't an on/off switch. It's not like a person dies and then suddenly, the universe itself recoils in horror at his death and conspires to make whatever his cause was a success now and forevermore. Hell, people in prison have had martyrlike causes spring up around the injustice of what was done to them.

Martyrdom is exceedingly rare and extremely complicated. It's not as simple as anyone who ever dies immediately bestowing a +20 bonus to whatever causes they believed in.

Executing terrorists is bad because it's wrong to kill a defenseless person in cold blood. If a terrorist was coming at me with a bomb and I shot him between the eyes, that would not make a martyr out of him. It would be an acceptable course of action, because he was actively threatening the lives of myself and anyone around me. It's the part where he's already subdued, no longer a threat, and we kill him anyway, that's a problem. Not because it martyrs him, but because it's morally wrong.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#236575: Mar 25th 2018 at 12:29:26 PM

I've bolded the part of your statement that I don't think you and North Korea will see eye to eye on. Agreeing with this statement requires acceptance of one basic truth: that North Korea is powerless on the global stage. That North Korea exists purely at the mercy of larger countries and could never be a true threat to the world at large. That, at the end of the day, Kim's regime exists purely because we permit it to and not because he is a powerful man in charge of a powerful nation.

Now, that largely is the situation. The only reason Kim's even on the map is because China protects him. But I think you're fooling yourself if you expect Kim to take his own global impotence into account and to act on the knowledge that he is a weak, defenseless, powerless man unable to even secure his own country from foreign attack.

If you expect Kim to agree with this, you are in for a surprise. He's not running a nation; he's just holding South Korea to ransom and demanding respect. There is little doubt in my mind that he'd pull that trigger if he thought an attack was coming, purely out of spite.

Frankly I think you're unjustifiably assuming that certain destruction is the same as being powerless, it is not. The fact that they would be destroyed by such an action does not mean that they lack the power to do incredible damage to their enemies, and they know it. Thus I am extremely skeptical of the idea that they would ignore the fact that a unjustified first strike is supremely sub-optimal to their interests.

It's not, actually. The biggest threat a conflict with North Korea poses is that China will be dragged into the war. Then it's a war between the U.S. and China, and nobody wants that.
I don't see how this is true, the only way a conflict would not guarantee their destruction is if they did not use their nuclear weapons. Which would defeat the entire point in having them, if there is no threat of their use nuclear weapons become useless.

edited 25th Mar '18 12:31:47 PM by Fourthspartan56

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

Total posts: 417,856
Top